Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Changes in federal sentencing for forced labor trafficking and for sex trafficking: a ten year assessment

  • Published:
Crime, Law and Social Change Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This research examines changes in the legalities of federal sentencing for forced labor trafficking offenses and for sex trafficking from 2001 to 2010. During this period Congress sought to increase substantially penalties imposed for these offenses. The research tracks Congressional directives and the United States Sentencing response via amendment changes. Increases in mandatory minimum penalties and extension of federal statues covered under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines § 2H4.1 Peonage, Involuntary, and Slave Trade, and under § 2G1.3 Promoting a Commercial Sex Act or Prohibited Sexual Conduct with a Minor; Transportation of Minors to Engage in a Commercial Sex Act or Prohibited Sexual Conduct; Travel to Engage in Commercial Sex Act or Prohibited Sexual Conduct; Travel to Engage in Commercial Sex Act or Prohibited Sexual Conduct with a Minor; Sex Trafficking of Children; Use of Interstate Facilities to Transport Information about a Minor reflected Congressional directives that amounted to a “get tough” policy. Having traced changes in federal sentencing for these two offenses, the research conducts a descriptive analysis of length of imprisonment imposed, the final offense level, the defendant’s criminal history, guidelines departures, pretrial detention, route of case disposition, and defendant characteristics for the purpose of assessing potential links between the changes in federal sentencing and the process and outcome of actually sentencing practices.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Pub. L. 106–386 (2000).

  2. According to TVPA, Section 102

  3. TVPA, §102 (b) (17)

  4. TVPA, §102 (b) (14)

  5. TVPA, §102 (b) (15)

  6. TVPA, §102 (b) (24)

  7. Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2003 (H.R. 2620), Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2005 (H.R. 972), Pub. L. No. 109–164, §103(a)(1), 119 Stat. 3558(2005); William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008 (H.R. 7311), Pub. L. No. 110–457, § 222(d)(1), 122 Stat. 5044 (2008).

  8. Section 5(b) of the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2003

  9. 18:1589–1591

  10. 18:1581–1588

  11. 18:1961 (1)(A)

  12. The William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008

  13. Sections 2G2.1, 2G1.1 are also linked to human trafficking via overlap in related statutes defining the criminal activity associated with the Guidelines sections.

  14. §18:241, § 18:1581 (Peonage; obstructing enforcement), § 18:1582 (Vessels for Slave Trade), § 18:1583 (Enticement into Slavery), § 18:1584 (Involuntary Servitude); § 18:1585 (Seizure, Detention, Transportation or Sale of Slaves), § 18:1586 (Service on Vessels in Slave Trade), § 18:1587 (Possession of Slaves Abroad Vessel), § 18:1588 (Transportation of Slaves from United States).

  15. §18:1589 (Forced labor), §18:1590 (Trafficking with respect to peonage, slavery, involuntary servitude, or fraud, forced labor or coercion), and §18:1592 (Unlawful conduct with respect to documents in furtherance of trafficking, peonage, slavery, involuntary servitude, or forced labor). United States Sentencing Commission Guidelines Manual, 2012, vol. 3, Amendment 627.

  16. United States Sentencing Commission Guidelines Manual, 2012, vol. 3, Amendment 730.

  17. United States Sentencing Commission Guidelines Manual, 2003, vol. 3, Appendix C.

  18. §18:2442

  19. United States Sentencing Commission Guidelines Manual, 2012, Amendment 733.

  20. United States Sentencing Commission Guidelines Manual, 2003, Appendix C)

  21. United States Sentencing Commission Guidelines Manual, 2012, Appendix C, vol. 3, Amendment 730. Amendment 627, effective in November 2001, made permanent the modification, first found in Amendment 612 promulgated in May 2001.

  22. The first is the same as that noted above (Amendments 612 and 627). The second applies to an offender convicted for a violation of § 18:1593A. Specifically, Amendment 730 provides that, “a defendant convicted of 18 U.S.C. § 18:1593A receives the same base-offense level as if the defendant were convicted of committing the underlying violation. United States Sentencing Commission Guidelines Manual, 2012, vol. 3, Appendix C, Amendment 730.

  23. § 2H4.1

  24. § 18:1584

  25. This hypothetical case assumes no departures or acceptance of responsibility reductions are applied to determining sentence outcomes.

  26. Although the Federal Sentencing Guidelines were made advisory, rather than presumptive, after the Supreme Court decision in Booker v. U.S. (2005), data indicate that federal judges continued to apply the Guidelines.

  27. These sections included 2G1.1, 2G2.4, 2A3.1 and 2A3.2.

  28. Effective November 1, 2004.

  29. Amendment 737 represents only technical, non-substantive change to the Guidelines.

  30. § 2G1.3

  31. 8 U.S. C. §1328, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1591, 2421, 2422, 2422(b), 2423, 2425.

  32. Promoting a Commercial Sex Act or Prohibited Sexual Conduct with a Minor; Transportation of Minors to Engage in a Commercial Sex Act or Prohibited Sexual Conduct; Travel to Engage in Commercial Sex Act or Prohibited Sexual Conduct with a Minor; Sex Trafficking of Children; Use of Interstate Facilitates to Transport Information about a Minor.

  33. The parental/custodial relationship of the defendant to the victim; knowingly misrepresenting the “participant’s identity to persuade, induce, entice, coerce, or facilitate travel of minor to engage in prohibited sexual conduct; encouraging a minor to engage in prohibited in a sex act; using a computer either to “induce, entice, coerce, or facilitate the travel of a minor to engage in prohibited sexual conduct,” or to “entice, encourage, offer, or solicit a person to engage in prohibited sexual conduct with a minor;” “the commission of a sex act or sexual conduct” or “a commercial sex act;” and the age of the minor victim.

  34. Section 208, Public Law No. 109–248, 120 Stat. 615.

  35. 18:§ 1591(b)(1), 18:§ 1591(b)(2), 18: § 2422(b) and 18: § 2423(a).

  36. § 208

  37. 18:§ 1591(b)(1)

  38. 18: § 1591(b)(2)

  39. 18: § 2422(b)

  40. 18: § 2423(a)

  41. 18: § 2422(b) and 18: § 2423(a)

  42. 18: § 2422(b) and 18: § 2423(a)

  43. United States Sentencing Guidelines. Vol. 3, p. 214, 2011.

  44. 18: § 2242(b)

  45. 18: §§ 241, 1581–1590, 1592, 1593(A), 2442

  46. 18: §§ 1591, 1591(b)(1), 1591(b)(2), 2421, 2422, 2422(b), 2423, 2423(a), 2425

  47. 18 §§ 1591(b)(1), 1591(b)(2), 2422(b) and 2423(a).

  48. It included 18: §§ 1589, 1590, 1592. Amendment 733 added 18: § 2442.

  49. United States Sentencing Commission, 2012, vol. 3 Appendix C “Reason for the Amendment” explaining Amendment 664 link to the PROTECT Act.

  50. § 2H4.1

References

  1. Albonetti, C. (1997). Sentencing under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines: effects of defendant characteristics, guilty pleas, and departures on sentence outcomes for drug offenses, 1991–1992. Law and Society Review, 31(4), 789–822.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Albonetti, C., & Baller, R. (2010). Sentencing in federal drug trafficking/manufacturing cases: a multilevel analysis of extra-legal defendant characteristics, guidelines departures, and continuity of culture. Journal of Gender, Race and Justice, 41(1), 41–71.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Albonetti, C. (2002). The effects of the “Safety Valve” amendment on length of imprisonment for cocaine trafficking/manufacturing offenders: mitigating the effects of mandatory minimum penalties and offender’s ethnicity. Iowa Law Review, 87(2), 401–433.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Albonetti, C. (2002). The joint conditioning effect of defendant’s gender and ethnicity on length of imprisonment under the federal sentencing guidelines for drug trafficking/manufacturing offenders. The Journal of Gender, Race and Justice, 6(1), 39–60.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Albonetti, C. (1998). The role of gender and departures in the sentencing of defendants convicted of a white-collar offense under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines. Crime, Law, and Deviance, 1, 3–48.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Day, K. (2012). Addressing the sex trafficking crisis: how prostitution laws can help. Creighton International and Comparative Journal, 2, 149–172.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Gyutvi, J. (1994). Prosecutorial discretion to bring a substantial assistance motion pursuant to a plea agreement: enforcing a good faith standard. Minnesota Law Review, 78, 1253–1283.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Johnson, B., & Ulmer, J. (2008). The social context of guidelines circumvention: the case of federal district courts. Criminology, 46(3), 737–783.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Mattar, M. (2011). Interpreting judicial interpretations of the criminal statutes of the trafficking victims protection act: ten years later. American University Journal of Gender, Social Policy and the Law, 19, 1248–1304.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Mustard, D. (2001). Racial, ethnic, and gender disparities in sentencing: evidence from the U.S. Federal Courts. Journal of Law and Economics, 44(1), 285–314.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Nel, S. (2005). Victims of human trafficking: are they adequately protected in the United States? Journal of International and Comparative Law, 5, 1–32.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Standen, J. (1993). Plea bargaining in the shadow of the guidelines. California Law Review, 81, 1471–1538.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Ulmer, J., Light, M., & Kramer, J. (2011). Does increased judicial discretion lead to increased disparity? The “liberation” of judicial sentencing discretion in the wake of Booker/Fanfan decision. Justice Quarterly, 28(6), 799–837.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Wilkins, W., Jr., & Steer, J. (1990). Relevant conduct: the cornerstone of the federal sentencing guidelines. South Carolina Law Review, 41, 495–531.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Cano, M., & Spohn, C. (2004). Prosecutorial discretion and real offense sentencing under the federal sentencing guidelines: an analysis of relevant conduct. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 39, 308–332.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Hartley, R., Maddan, S., & Spohn, C. (2007). Prosecutorial discretion: an examination of substantial assistance departures in federal crack cocaine and powder cocaine cases. Justice Quarterly, 24, 382–407.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Hofer, P., Blackwell, K., & Ruback, R. (1999). The effects of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines on inter-judge sentencing disparity. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 90(1), 239–322.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Lee, C. (1994). Prosecutorial discretion, substantial assistance, and the federal sentencing guidelines. University of California Los Angles Law Review, 42, 105–180.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Scott, R. (2010). Inter-judge sentencing disparity after Booker: a first look. Stanford Law Review, 63(1), 1–66.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Ulmer, J., Eisenstein, J., & Johnson, B. (2010). Trial penalties in federal sentencing: extra-guidelines factors and district variation. Justice Quarterly, 27(4), 560–592.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Choi-Fitzpatrick, A. (2012). Rethinking trafficking: Contemporary slavery. In A. Brysk & A. Choi-Fitzpatrick (Eds.), From human trafficking to human rights (pp. 1–12). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Farrell, A. (2011). Improving law enforcement identification and response to human trafficking. In J. Winterdyk, B. Perrin, & P. Reichel (Eds.), Human trafficking: Exploring the international nature, concerns and complexities (pp. 181–207). New York: Taylor and Francis.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Farrell, A., & McDevitt, J. (2008). Enhancing the collection and standardization of human trafficking data: Examples from data collection in the United States. In International Organization of Migration. Human trafficking: New directions for research (pp. 15–27). Geneva: International Organization of Migration.

  24. Farrell, A., & Fahy, S. (2009). The problem of human trafficking in the U.S.: public frames and policy responses. Journal of Criminal Justice, 37(6), 617–627.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Mariconda, S. (2009). Breaking the chains: combating human trafficking at the state level. Boston College Third World Law Journal, 29, 151–187.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Yoder, H. (2008–2009). Civil rights for victims of human trafficking. University of Pennsylvania Journal of Law and Social Change, 12, 133–168.

  27. United States Sentencing Guidelines Manual. (2003).

  28. Nagel, I., & Johnson, B. (1994). The role of gender in a structured sentencing system: equal treatment policy choices, and the sentencing of female offenders under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 85(1), 181–221.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Everett, R., & Wojtkiewicz, R. (2002). Difference, disparity, and race/ethnicity bias in federal sentencing. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 18(2), 189–211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Steffensmeier, D., & Demuth, S. (2000). Ethnicity and sentencing outcomes in U.S. Federal Courts: who is punished more harshly? American Sociological Review, 65(3), 705–729.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Kautt, P., & Delone, M. (2006). Sentencing outcomes under competing but coexisting sentencing interventions: untying the Gordian Knot. Criminal Justice Review, 31(2), 105–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Sociology, University of Iowa, W140 Seashore Hall, Iowa City, IA, 52327, USA

    Celesta A. Albonetti

Authors
  1. Celesta A. Albonetti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Celesta A. Albonetti.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Albonetti, C.A. Changes in federal sentencing for forced labor trafficking and for sex trafficking: a ten year assessment. Crime Law Soc Change 61, 179–204 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10611-013-9507-1

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10611-013-9507-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation